FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 1st, 2001

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, we have a quorum for hearing witnesses, so we'd like to get going.

We have witnesses from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the American Association of Jurists.

Is Ms. Atkinson going to lead off?

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Yes, indeed.

The Chair: Thank you for coming. Did you have a chance to look at some of the questions that were asked the other day about immigration issues?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No. I haven't had a chance to see the blues, but I am prepared to take any and all questions. I'll be happy to respond to them as best I can.

The Chair: Thank you very much. After you make your opening remarks, we'll turn it over to questions.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here to address the committee this morning on immigration-related issues in the amendments to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

As you've probably been told, the purpose of the amendments that relate to immigration in this act are to clarify the apparent contradiction in the current Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act where orders under this act exempt international organizations and their members from immigration restrictions, but the Immigration Act still prohibits admission if individuals are inadmissible under section 19 of the Immigration Act. We get around that in the current context by issuing a minister's permit.

I'd like to talk a little bit about what a minister's permit is just to put that into context, and I'd also like to touch on the categories of inadmissibility in the current Immigration Act to explain in what circumstances we would issue a minister's permit in the current context, and how, under this amendment, an individual may come to Canada without the need for a minister's permit.

A minister's permit is a document issued under section 37 of the current Immigration Act. It is the authority of the minister to allow an individual who is otherwise inadmissible to Canada to enter and remain in Canada for a period of time. It is called a minister's permit, but in actual fact the vast majority of these permits are not issued by the minister herself but by the minister's delegate; that is, they are delegated to senior immigration officers in Canada and immigration program managers overseas.

The minister's permit is normally issued, depending on the inadmissibility category, only after there has been verification and concurrence sought from headquarters or regional offices. So there are checks and balances in the system to ensure these permits are issued in exceptional circumstances to individuals who are inadmissible when there are compelling reasons for those individuals to come to Canada.

Individuals who enter Canada on a minister's permit are not visitors, permanent residents, temporary workers, students, or refugees. They are minister's permit holders. It confers a unique and special status all by itself. It is unique not only because it is an exceptional authority to allow an individual to come to Canada and remain in Canada, but because it can be revoked at any time by the minister or the minister's delegate, and the individual who holds that permit could be required to leave Canada.

As I said, we issue minister's permits to individuals who are inadmissible to Canada, and I believe committee members have in front of them a list of the inadmissible classes under the current Immigration Act. I'll quickly go through those classes so you can see the types of individuals to whom we may issue minister's permits and who, under the amendment, may be allowed to come to Canada without the need of a minister's permit.

• 0915

The inadmissible classes are roughly divided into health, criminality, security, and other technical grounds for inadmissibility. Paragraph 19.(1)(a) deals with health issues, persons who may pose a threat to public health or safety, or may pose an excessive demand on health or social services.

Paragraph 19.(1)(b) deals with financial reasons, persons who are unable or unwilling to support themselves. Paragraph 19.(1)(c.i) relates to serious criminality, individuals who have been convicted outside or inside Canada of convictions that are equivalent to offences punishable by 10 years or more.

You will note in these sections there is a possibility for relief if the minister is satisfied that individuals are rehabilitated.

Paragraphs 19.(1)(c.2) and 19.(1)(d) relate to organized crime. Paragraphs 19.(1)(e), 19.(1)(f), and 19.(1)(k) all deal with security issues and relate to inadmissibility for people who, there are reasonable grounds to believe, will engage in terrorism, subversion, or espionage. Paragraph 19.(1)(f) talks about reasonable grounds to believe a person has engaged in acts of terrorism, espionage, or subversion; and paragraph 19.(1)(k) about persons who constitute a danger to the security of Canada.

Paragraph 19.(1)(h) covers persons who are not, in the opinion of an adjudicator, bona fide immigrants or refugees; paragraph 19.(1)(i) covers deportees, people who have not obtained the consent of the minister to return to Canada after having been deported; paragraph 19.(1)(j) relates to war crimes and crimes against humanity; and paragraph 19.(1)(l) refers to senior officials in a government that is involved in human rights violations.

Paragraph 19.(2)(a), paragraph 19.(2)(a.1), and paragraph 19.(2)(b) refer to less serious criminality, that is, individuals who have been convicted of an offence inside or outside of Canada that is equivalent to an offence punishable by less than 10 years imprisonment.

Again, there are provisions for relief in the event a person has been deemed to be rehabilitated by the minister after a period of time has elapsed.

Paragraph 19.(2)(c) refers to accompanying family members who may not be granted admission, or are not authorized to come into Canada, and paragraph 19.(2)(d) is a miscellaneous, if you will, provision, for persons who cannot comply with any other parts of the Immigration Act or regulations. This provision is always used in conjunction with the portion of the regulations or the act that a person does not comply with.

Take, for example, an individual who is being granted early admission to Canada before they have completed the processing of their immigration application. They don't have an immigrant visa, which is a requirement under section 9 of the act, but they could be given a minister's permit under paragraph 19.(2)(d), coupled with that section of the act that requires them to have an immigrant visa.

The vast majority of minister's permits that are issued in any given year are in fact issued under paragraph 19.(2)(d) of the Immigration Act and are related to technical reasons for inadmissibility—early admission, someone who has not completed processing, someone who doesn't have a travel document, and such situations.

I guess what we're trying to do in terms of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.... Why not stick with the minister's permit route we currently have?

First of all, the minister's permit does not confer a status of visitor, whether diplomatic or otherwise, on an individual. As I said, it is a unique status. It is an indication of inadmissibility, and that causes some concern to foreign dignitaries, heads of state, or heads of international organizations that may be coming to Canada. It's not considered to be appropriate when the Government of Canada has decided an individual should be allowed to come to Canada, to attend a meeting of an international organization for foreign policy, or for multilateral policy reasons.

The example that is often given is Nelson Mandela, who is inadmissible to Canada under the current regime because he was convicted of a serious criminal offence that places him within an inadmissibility category. This amendment to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act would allow an individual such as Mr. Mandela to come to Canada to attend an international meeting without the need to obtain a minister's permit in advance of that.

• 0920

I should assure committee members that this will not be done without thorough consultation with Citizenship and Immigration, and indeed with our partners, including CSIS. The act requires that there be an order issued by the cabinet, an Order in Council, before an international meeting is to be held in Canada that would specify which individuals would be allowed forward to Canada under the terms of that order.

We will work with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and with CSIS to ensure that for individuals who may come forward to international meetings by these international organizations, if they fall within one of the inadmissible categories I described, there will be consultation and there will be a consideration of the individual's inadmissibility to Canada and the foreign policy objectives or the multilateral policy objectives that are at stake in Canada hosting one of these international meetings of an international organization. And that consultation will take place in advance of an order going forward to cabinet and then cabinet will decide, in the context of an order under this act, whether or not these individuals should be allowed to come forward to Canada despite the fact that they are inadmissible.

So that's it very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Those are the reasons for the amendment, how it works currently, and how we foresee it working in the future.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Atkinson.

Before I move to questions, Mr. Harb has a short statement he'd like to make.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to report to you that the subcommittee on international trade and investment has completed its hearings on the Canada-U.S. border in terms of the flow of goods and services, and we are in the process of compiling a report.

In addition, there have been representations from members of the committee for the committee to look at the issue of softwood lumber as well as the issue of steel, and we agreed yesterday to conduct hearings with regard to those two issues. And of course the committee would also be looking at the issue of the business case of Canada and the free trade area of the Americas. We are in the process of planning for this particular study, and I thought it important for me to inform the committee of that and to get your blessing.

The Chair: Blessing is a big word, Mr. Harb. You may have to come here and ask for absolution, but I don't know about a blessing.

Mr. O'Brien, did you want to speak to that?

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Harb and the subcommittee on the good work they did on Costa Rica. I thought it was done in the spirit of good cooperation with the parties. There was some very serious discussion. I thought it was very useful and very helpful to this standing committee that the subcommittee took it on.

I think the minister would be very happy, and I know I would, to see the subcommittee seize the issues of steel and softwood lumber. They're both very pressing issues. We'd like solutions tomorrow, but that's probably not realistic. So I think it would be very useful if they did take on those two issues.

And let me just finish my commercial by saying that I've always been amazed at how busy this standing committee is during the brief time I've been on it. I frankly think there's a growing argument to take trade and have a standing committee on trade. I know it stretches numbers, particularly for the opposition, but that aside, if we can take a look at the merits of it in and of itself, I think there are some strong arguments for a standing committee on trade. I thought I'd put that in. In the time I've been in this job as parliamentary secretary, I know you need a skateboard to try to get back and forth between these two committees.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Were you asking us at this point to divest ourselves of the trade subcommittee?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Can I get your blessing and can you announce that today in the House?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

• 0925

The Chair: I think we're very supportive of the work the trade subcommittee is doing, and so far it seems to be working quite well. They're able to take these issues and complement the work of the main committee.

I agree with you, it was wonderful to be able to have something like the Costa Rica bill dealt with in that committee as specialized legislation. And I understand there will be other specialized legislation coming at us in the near future. We're hopeful we can continue that good work.

The other issue, obviously, we can discuss later.

Colleagues, is there any objection to the subcommittee taking a look at the steel and the softwood lumber issues with the United States? Is there any problem with that?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): No, we're fine with that.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Harb.

Please excuse me, Ms. Atkinson, for interrupting you, but I promised Mr. Harb to get him in before we got going. Normally we'd start with Mr. Pallister.

Sir.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Atkinson, for your presentation.

I have some concerns that section 37 is no longer going to be relevant after the adoption of this bill and that the protections that may have otherwise been there, the safeguards that may have otherwise been there, will be gone. You say there will be consultation in the future, but there's nothing that requires it under the new act, in my estimation.

My first question is the following. Under section 37 it requires the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration within 30 days following the commencement of each fiscal year, or if Parliament's not been sitting, within the first 30 days next thereafter, to report in respect to each permit issued. There's parliamentary oversight, therefore, possible under the current system. How would there be parliamentary oversight possible under the proposed bill?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The minister's permit will continue to be a feature of the proposed act under section 26 of the new act. It will not be called a minister's permit; it will be called a temporary resident permit in recognition of the fact that the minister himself or herself issues very few of these permits. But the intent will be the same. It will be a permit issued in exceptional circumstances when there are compelling reasons for an individual to come forward to Canada.

In addition, there will continue to be accountability to Parliament for the issuance of these permits. The new act will have a consolidated report to Parliament that will consolidate the current immigration levels report and the minister's permit report, to be called temporary resident permit report, plus the reporting on transportation loans. So rather than have separate reports, it will all be done together in one report, but it will continue to be tabled in Parliament.

Mr. Brian Pallister: On the question of screening, you say there's consultation done and so on, and we understand this new act would now apply immunity potentially to a much larger number of people. To what degree do we screen people now who come here for international events?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: As with the screening of any visitor who comes to Canada, we first of all check the name and date of birth against our existing databases. Those databases are information that comes not only from within the immigration system but also contains information from our law enforcement partners, including CSIS. They contain information on known and suspected terrorists, information on known and suspected war criminals, and so on.

In addition to the check against the databases, we will normally look at a visitor against indicators. We work on the indicators that are provided to us from CSIS; we draw up those indicators in consultation with them. And those indicators give us, I would say, not a stop but an amber light in terms of looking at individuals against certain characteristics: country of origin, age, membership in certain organizations, certain occupations, and so on. And if an individual appears to fit one or some of these indicators, there is an additional check that is done directly with CSIS, and CSIS does some further research against additional databases to determine whether or not this might be a person of concern.

And thirdly, normally we also rely on the judgment of individual immigration and visa officers, who, based on their experience in dealing with individuals from certain parts of the world, may pick up on certain elements that may be of concern but would not automatically lead to a denial of admission but that might cause them to take more time and do a little bit more in-depth analysis and investigation.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Which would then trigger a circumstance where there might be a certificate, I think you called it—what's the new name, temporary residence permit—being issued to override that decision potentially.

I think you also referenced basically that we don't want to hurt the feelings of people who come here who may not otherwise be eligible to enter the country. I understand the rationale, and you reference Nelson Mandela. But it would be fair to say we could also have Gaddafi come here as well on a permit; we could have any number of people who otherwise might be undesirable in the minds of Canadian people come to this country, as well, by the issuance of such a certificate. That's correct as well, isn't it?

• 0930

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It is correct that anyone who is inadmissible to Canada could potentially be issued a temporary resident permit under the new act, or a minister's permit under this act, to come to Canada. But I would respond by saying that these decisions are not taken lightly, and when you're dealing with a high-profile individual, there is extensive consultation; it is not a decision that is taken unilaterally, normally, by the Department of Immigration. There is consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, with CSIS, with all those who need to be involved in that, and a decision is made. In the case of a very high-level or high-profile individual, normally that decision would be taken at the ministerial level.

Mr. Brian Pallister: You're implying that the process will remain unchanged whether this act is adopted or not. Is that correct?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The process by which we—

Mr. Brian Pallister: The people are investigated and the security risks are determined to protect Canadians.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Exactly.

Mr. Brian Pallister: You're saying that will remain unchanged.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's right. That security screening will still be done. There will still be an opportunity for CIC, together with our partners, to look at individuals who may be of concern, who may come forward to these international meetings, to do an analysis and weigh national interest and the risk to Canada of having these individuals come to Canada versus the objectives of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Given the rather well-publicized recent concerns about terrorists potentially using this country as their safe haven and the like, to what degree is screening done now, and what time would it take?

For example, we have the G-20 finance ministers meeting coming here. We didn't get much notice of it. A lot of people are going to be coming here. Who supplies you with lists of all the people who are coming? Does each country supply you with a list and now all those people are being investigated by CSIS? Is that what's going on right now?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We get lists of the delegates who are coming to these meetings, and as I said, the first thing we do is determine, from an immigration perspective, whether any of these individuals might be of concern. We check against our own databases, and we apply our own knowledge of the situation and the classes of inadmissibility.

If we determine that there is a need for further investigation by CSIS, we would refer those cases to CSIS for further investigation. That will continue under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act amendment.

Mr. Brian Pallister: With the permanent missions, does the same process apply, that people supply you with a list? Is that what's going to happen in the future under this act?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct.

Mr. Brian Pallister: The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will gather lists of people who are going to be stationed here—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct.

Mr. Brian Pallister: —and those lists will then basically be investigated using this amber-light method that you described.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: So you don't see any change there whatsoever.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, the change, of course, is what the outcome is.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Under this particular act, we're talking about international meetings and international organizations, and if we determine that although this individual is inadmissible to Canada, it's still in our interest to allow this person to come forward—

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Atkinson. This act also relates to permanent missions. I'm working on the angle of the diplomatic immunity aspects of this.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Sure.

Mr. Brian Pallister: So if we extend diplomatic immunity in future—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

Mr. Brian Pallister: —the process that is going to be used under this act, in your estimation, would be unchanged from the previous process—in other words, for checking out people who are going to be stationed here at the Saudi embassy, or whatever the case may be.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. In terms of the sort of security screening that would be done to determine whether these people are of any concern, yes, that would still be done.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay. So there's no stiffening of that; there's no making that screening process any more rigorous, or any of that. There's no acknowledgement that there has been a problem with violations by foreign diplomats or abuses of the right of diplomatic immunity.

We know from the report that we're supposed to get today that there have been 76 cases in the last five years, 13 since Catherine MacLean was tragically killed, of diplomats committing crimes in Canada and basically no consequence to them. There's nothing in this act that would address that in any way, shape, or form.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I guess I would respond by saying that we would look at people against the inadmissibility criteria in the Immigration Act, which is based largely, when you're talking about criminality, on past criminal activity, not future. We obviously cannot predict who might commit crimes in Canada. We look at their past criminal activity.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Right. That's good, and I think we all understand there's no perfect system that is going to weed out all potential criminals.

I'm sure I've used my time, and I thank you for your answers.

• 0935

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You had more time.

The Chair: I'll be equally generous with you, Ms. Lalonde, since we have a little time to spare this morning. There's no need to hurry.

[English]

But maybe I could quickly nip in just a follow-up on that one question.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: And just when I'm about to take the floor!

[English]

The Chair: A quick question.

When you talk about these foreign missions—Mr. Pallister might be interested in this issue—if you check this list, what about countries that don't require any check? When Americans come up for a conference, do they get a pass under this? They can come to Canada without a visa or anything. They just get on a plane and come up, and nobody checks anything about them. They just get on a plane, and it's, hi, I'm here. So what about countries for which we don't require visas or anything? Will they still be subject to the terms of this legislation, or will they just come?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I would think they would also be subject to the terms of this legislation. Persons who do not require visas to come to Canada are still subject to the same criteria in terms of admission to Canada, but rather than that checking happening overseas before they get a visa to come to Canada, it happens at the port of entry when they arrive.

The examining officer at the port of entry, first of all, the customs officer on the PIL line, or the primary inspection line, determines whether this is an individual who needs to be seen by immigration. If the customs officer, who is an immigration officer for the purposes of the Immigration Act on that primary inspection line, determines that they need to be seen by an immigration officer, they're referred to immigration, which then does a more thorough check and normally interviews the individual, and so on, to determine admissibility.

The Chair: Okay. Is this what others do? New York has all these thousands of diplomats coming in and out from meetings at the UN. Are the Americans checking everybody who comes to the UN on a daily basis, from wherever in the world? There must be 25,000 a year who go in there. Do they do this?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I can't speak for the details of the American system, but I know our visitor visa screening systems are similar in terms of the inadmissibility criteria that we look for, but beyond that, I really can't give you much detail.

The Chair: I'm thinking of the diplomatic immunity aspect.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't think we have any specific information on how the Americans screen diplomats.

The Chair: I'm just interested.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I listened carefully to your comments, but I'd like you to tell me again in two sentences why you are changing the system. There is a lengthy list of individuals who are not deemed inadmissible, just as there was before. Now, a minister's permit will be required and exactly the same type of investigation will be conducted. I'd like to understand why you are calling for these changes. Is it the same minister who issues the orders?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think the critical change is the status that individuals will be given in Canada when an order is made under this act to allow them to come to Canada to attend international meetings. Currently there is a conflict. The government says they want these individuals to come forward to Canada to attend this meeting, but the Immigration Act says they're inadmissible to Canada. As a result, the only way they can come forward is by the issuance of this minister's permit, which does not grant them a status in Canada that is commensurate with their status as a head or a member of a delegation.

So it's to resolve that apparent conflict between two objectives, if you will, of public policy and to clarify that when cabinet has decided that these individuals should be allowed forward despite the fact that they may be inadmissible under the Immigration Act, they come forward with the same status as any delegate to that meeting who is not inadmissible to Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Is it the same minister who is responsible for the act?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It is the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is accountable and responsible for the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, and it's the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who is accountable for the Immigration Act. But the two ministers, or the two ministries, will obviously consult with each other, and then it's ultimately cabinet that will decide. So in the end, cabinet is accountable and responsible for issuing the order.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You mean the Prime Minister's office. Isn't that right?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Correct.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: This means that an individual such as Nelson Mandela, to use the same example, could come to Canada with all the dignity afforded his stature without having to endure a situation where he would be refused entry into the country because of his past transgressions.

• 0940

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Precisely.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That is the main objective.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Correct.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I was my impression that the objective was to fast-track the entry process in the case of these individuals.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We will need to take the time that is required to determine whether these individuals are admissible to Canada. We will work with the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure that we get enough time in advance of an international meeting to conduct our security checks, as I described, and to consult with CSIS, if that is required. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration also consult with each other to determine whether it's in Canada's national interest to allow these individuals to come forward.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The difference, however, is that there are no files containing specific records. I'm not sure how you are planning to proceed, but likely there will be a list of delegates. Cabinet will probably confirm that a particular person from a foreign country is scheduled to attend. I would imagine that Canada and the foreign nation in question will also exchange information.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's right.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I imagine the process can be fast- tracked.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Normally when we're dealing with international meetings and we're dealing with dignitaries, we do give them accelerated treatment.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I understand. However, this doesn't mean that section 19 of the Immigration Act will fall by the wayside. This provision will continue to apply, will it not?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There will be some changes in the new legislation, in the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. All of the elements that are currently in section 19 will be in the new immigration act. There are some additional categories of inadmissibility in the new immigration act that relate to individuals who are subject to international travel sanctions that have been imposed on a country by an international organization such as the United Nations or the Commonwealth. That's a new category of inadmissibility.

Persons who are committing crimes as they cross the border will be inadmissible without the necessity for us to have a conviction. We will be able to refuse admission to persons crossing the border who are committing crimes—for example, drunk drivers who are driving across the border. There is a new inadmissibility category for persons who commit fraud and misrepresentation. They will be inadmissible for a period of two years.

So there are some new categories, but all of these categories will still be there.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have only one more brief question.

As an MP, I often receive requests from citizens who want to bring their mother, grandmother or sister to Canada. They are unable to obtain visas because Immigration is worried that they might remain in the country. We encounter all kinds of dramatic situations. When one of your officials sends up a red flag, because the person in question is ill and therefore likely to remain in the country - they don't tell us that directly, but we understand the situation nevertheless - then we encounter some desperate situations. The only recourse available is to appeal to the minister. Will we still be able to do that?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. The new act will continue to have the requirement that a visitor applicant must satisfy a visa officer that they are coming to Canada for a temporary purpose only and that they will leave at the end of their.... So that requirement will remain the same.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You mentioned a change in status. Will it still be possible to appeal to the minister?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. That will remain the same. The only way to overcome that, if a visa officer has made the decision to refuse it, is to request what we call a “minister's permit”, one of these temporary resident permits. That will remain the same.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Therefore, the option of appealing to the minister will still exist.

There are a total of three lines in the bill that refer to this. If I understand correctly, the order made pursuant to subsection (1) supersedes the incompatible provisions of section 19 of the Immigration Act. What are these incompatible provisions? The question was put to you, but I don't believe you answered it.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The incompatibility lies in the fact that section 19 lists all those individuals who are inadmissible to Canada. The Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act says individuals should be allowed to come to Canada if they are attending an international meeting of one of these organizations. So that's where the contradiction is. We have one piece of legislation that says they can't come to Canada and another piece of legislation that says they should come to Canada. And that's the incompatibility we're trying to deal with.

• 0945

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I see. On the one hand, we extend an invitation to them, while on the other hand, we tell them that they can't come to Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.

You have the floor, Ms. Jennings.

[English]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): When a decree would be issued by Order in Council for an individual who falls under the category of inadmissible, but the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Citizenship and Immigration have figured out that yes, this person needs to come to this particular international event happening in Canada, how are you going to determine the duration of that permit? I'm assuming that you're going to add in travel time. What if the person says the actual event is three days, and the person or his mission or government says they need to have that person there for three weeks? On what basis will you actually determine the duration of the permit to be in Canada legally for that international event?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The amendment only would allow that individual to be in Canada for the purposes of that meeting, and the order would reflect that. So if the mission here indicates that the individual needs to remain longer to conduct other business, we would have to look at that and consider whether or not we would issue a minister's permit or a temporary resident permit in the new legislation to that individual, because the order will only allow them to come to Canada for the purposes of the meeting.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I've been involved in and attended international conferences. For the purposes of that conference, I've arrived, at times, three or four days before the actual conference. And I've stayed after the last event of the conference for another two or three days, and it was for the purposes of that conference. So what will be the criteria to determine that those days, other than the days actually scheduled for the event, are in fact in direct relation to the purposes of the conference?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We would have to negotiate that in terms of the purpose for coming two days before and staying three days after. What is the nature of the meetings and what is the nature of the business the individual is here to conduct? It's quite fair to say that on the margins of international conferences you will often have bilateral meetings with other delegates or with the host government and so on. And that's accepted, known practice. If an individual or their country representative here indicates that this individual has to stay for three weeks beyond the end of the conference, then I think we would have probably a little problem with that in terms of the nature of their business here.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay. I appreciate that information.

Now I'm going to follow in the footsteps of Madame Lalonde, my colleague, something that I don't often do, but I will do today, and go outside of the framework of Bill C-35.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: [Editor's note: inaudible]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I rather think it's a bad habit.

[English]

I want to discuss a problem that exists with the current immigration legislation, and I'd like to know if the new legislation actually addresses it. That is the case of someone who comes here and who has been a claimant for refugee status, and the IRB has following hearings. Listening to and evaluating all of the evidence, it deems that the individual is in fact a refugee under the convention. Then the individual applies to have permanent residency and they are refused because CSIS has determined they are a security risk, they're inadmissible, or whatever.

The individual is never told precisely the grounds for the refusal. It's fine to say you're a security risk, but what are the grounds that have led to that conclusion—because that is the conclusion, that's not the grounds that led to the conclusion or the evidence. And that individual stays here, because they're allowed to stay here, but they're virtually in no man's land, no woman's land, no child's land, with no legal status other than the fact that they are refugees and have been recognized as such.

• 0950

Half came here with families. As for their children, once they're in the public school system—grade school and high school—they are fine. But once they hit CEGEP and university, because they don't have any status—the status follows from the parent—there is at present no mechanism for those young people to be able to get their own status, unless they leave the country and then apply for landed immigrant status as an independent. What, if anything, does the new legislation do to address this?

I'm going to add one thing. There may be good reason, after a year, five years, ten years, fifteen years, to continue to refuse a request for permanent residency landing here in Canada to a refugee. Let's sort out and regularize the situation of the family members, unless there's specific reason to say they are a security risk—those children who came here at two years old or five years old.

What is our government doing and what is it prepared to do in the new legislation to sort this out?

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

As much as I too enjoy my collegiality with Ms. Jennings and often with Ms. Lalonde, I have to point out that what we're discussing here is an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. And however much I enjoy having Ms. Atkinson here, and all of the concerns that may relate to the current legislation of her department, I really think it would be more useful to stay within the ambit of this committee's bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concerns of my esteemed colleague, who I adore, but the door was opened and the point of order should have been made in a previous intervention. It wasn't, so....

The Chair: Let's not argue about procedure. I'm trying to give as much latitude as I can to members to allow them to get information about the bill.

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, you're not.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister's of the view that this is some sort of filibuster, which I don't see it as. I see it as an attempt by Ms. Jennings to get some information about the way the immigration thing works.

If you can give us a very quick answer to that, then we'll try to get back to the specifics of the bill.

Do we have a vote? Okay, sorry I wasn't aware of it. I knew there was a lot of tension in the room this morning, but I didn't know why it was.

We'll go until 10:15 with this witness, but we do have five or six other questioners. Very quickly we'll go back to questions and then we'll vote.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I will try to answer the question. It's a complicated issue, but I'll try to answer it as quickly as I can.

The first thing we've put in place already, even before Bill C-11 becomes law, is front-end security screening of refugee claimants. Front-end security screening is intended to determine those who may pose security risk issues—or criminality, war crimes, or other inadmissibility issues—at the beginning of the process rather than at the end of the process. It is our hope that this will allow us to identify those individuals and to deal with them before they've gone all the way through the process and then are applying for landing.

A person who poses a security threat is excludable from the refugee determination process. They then go from the refugee determination process to the removal process. Before the person is removed the bill allows for a pre-removal risk assessment, where an assessment is done on the nature of the security threat to Canada posed by the individual, balanced against the individual's need for protection in Canada. That balancing is done and a decision is made.

As for the protection of sensitive information that the individual does not get access to, we must continue to have the tools available to protect such information. We can't deal with national security threats unless we're able to protect this sensitive information.

But the bill gives us the ability to use that information, not just in a Federal Court proceeding, but in front of the IRB, in front of an adjudicator, at detention reviews, at admissibility hearings and so on, so we can again deal with those issues more quickly in the process, rather than at the very end, when an individual may have been here for a long time.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: What does the bill do to address precisely the case of an individual who has been here for a long time and still can't get their status?

• 0955

You can provide me with the answer in writing, to the committee, and the clerk will forward it to me.

The Chair: That would be very helpful. Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I have all sorts of fascinating questions about the operation of the Immigration Act, but I will refrain from asking them, following on Ms. Jennings' precedent.

The Chair: That's the first time you've ever exercised any restraint.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's right. Well, Ms. Jennings opened the door; I was going to leap through.

I have a couple of questions on this particular section. I understand the objective. It's largely a bureaucratic one, to avoid an order having to be issued when cabinet in fact has presumably given consideration to the same criteria before putting a person on the list. I don't have a huge problem with that objective.

Over the course of the last five years, Canada has hosted a number of international meetings. You may not have had a chance to review this, and if not, you can get back to us, but on how many occasions has it in fact been necessary to issue a minister's permit under section 19 of the Immigration Act for participants in those international meetings?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't have a precise number for you, Mr. Robinson. We may be able to find that information. The most recent meeting where we issued a minister's permit was probably La Francophonie. A number of minister's permits needed to be issued for delegates to that. We may not have the exact number, but we can probably—

Mr. Svend Robinson: You could come back.

For La Francophonie, what were the nature of the offences for which minister's permits were required to be issued, the nature as to the categories under section 19?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Primarily, they were issued under paragraph 19(1)(j) of the Immigration Act. Those would be to individuals alleged to be involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So under this proposed change to the legislation giving primacy to the order issued by the cabinet, that would also apply to war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It would unless individuals had been convicted by one of the international tribunals. There's an explicit exception in the legislation that cabinet cannot issue an order to allow someone to come to Canada if they have been convicted by an international tribunal of being a war criminal.

Mr. Svend Robinson: In a sense I want to come back to the question Mr. Pallister asked earlier. Particularly with allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, why should it be the case that simply participation in a meeting in Canada would exempt an individual from having to get a permit? I don't understand that, frankly.

I can understand the example given of Nelson Mandela, and everybody agrees with that, but this is different. This is for individuals who are allegedly involved in some of the most heinous crimes the international community deals with. Why shouldn't they be required to at least go through the permitting process?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I would respond by saying that there needs to be a balance, of course, and as we talked about before, the government will look at and consider what that balance is, what the paramount interest is, if you will. There is a need to balance the fact that an individual is alleged to have been involved in these heinous crimes or activities versus the fact that Canada is hosting an international meeting, the purpose of which is to have these individuals deal with some of those very issues of concern that may be some of the root causes of some of these things.

It's a balance between those two things. Cabinet will make a decision on whether the individual's inadmissibilty is significant enough to override that particular imperative, or whether the other imperative is more important.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I understand that. But for the record, I'd like to indicate that I'm troubled by the suggestion that mere participation in an international meeting and being added to this list would mean they would be able to bypass the normal immigration requirements for a permit.

I note that section 19 refers to individuals who there are reasonable grounds to believe have, among other things, engaged in terrorism, and also paragraph 19.(1)(l), which refers to people who, in the opinion of the minister, engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations.

• 1000

How do you define terrorism? It's in your act. This has been the source of considerable difficulty at the international level. Do you have any written criteria that you apply in enforcing this particular provision of the Immigration Act on terrorism? If so, I trust you can share them with the committee.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right. As you pointed out, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.

In Bill C-36, which is currently in front of the House, we are defining terrorist activity for the purposes of the Criminal Code.

We rely on the information that we, or more likely CSIS, have gathered. We do not have a definition of terrorism, per se. We rely on the information CSIS collects and puts in a report it then presents to us to make a determination under these sections as to whether or not someone is engaged—or there are reasonable grounds to believe have or will engage—in terrorism.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Surely you must have some written criteria to guide you in that determination.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We do look at organizations and at whether it appears a person is either a self-declared member of a known terrorist organization, or that information or evidence suggests he or she is a member of the organization, self-declared or not. This is the sort of information our officers and our decision-makers use, and we work with—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I understand that, but I'm asking you a very specific question, Ms. Atkinson: Do any written guidelines exist for officers in exercising their determination under these provisions with respect to the issue of terrorism? Is there anything?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. We do have a manual of guidelines. Our decision-makers use a classified manual to give them some guidance when making their decisions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If you could share the contents of that with the committee with respect to the issue of terrorism—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And would that also include organizations? You said if people belong to a terrorist organization. Is there a list you use of alleged terrorist organizations as well?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: As I indicated before, we have used indicators to assist us in determining whether a person is of significant enough concern that we should do further investigation. Those indicators might include names of organizations.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And you do have names of some organizations.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We do use names of some organizations, yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And you'll share those with us as well.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. All this information of course is classified, Mr. Chair, but I'm sure we can share this—

Mr. Svend Robinson: With the committee. Thank you.

I have two other brief questions. On the issue of reciprocity, what do other countries do in similar circumstances? That's one of the things we look at. If another country—France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore—is hosting an international forum such as this and there are people alleged to have been involved, for example, in war crimes or crimes such as murder, do they require permits from those participants, or do they simply have a list? This is something we should be aware of as a committee. What are the practices of other countries that host international conferences?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I can't answer this specifically because I'm not aware of what the specific practices are of other countries. I understand that other countries do have acts similar to the Foreign Missions and International Organization Act to deal with immunity from certain laws in the host country, but I can't speak specifically—

Mr. Svend Robinson: If you could come back and get the information to us....

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay.

The Chair: You're well over, Mr. Robinson, so we'll have to stop you now and go to Madam Carroll.

You might think about this reciprocity issue, Ms. Atkinson. The question bothered me too. Are we going to find out that now when we send a Canadian delegation somewhere, someone will say that the last time we came to your country we had to go through hoops to provide a list? Guess what? Now we're going to make you do it too. Then we will say we shouldn't have to.

You know what it's like around here. We never expect that the sauce for the goose is going to be the sauce for the gander if we're the gander.

Anyway, on to Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Most of what I had wanted to ask has been asked.

I want to ask Ms. Atkinson one question. It relates to your explanation to Ms. Lalonde vis-à-vis the issuance of an Order in Council. Am I correct in my understanding that nothing has changed? To issue an Order in Council one must follow a specified process that is the same in the issuance of all Orders in Council. There's no change with this, as far as I understand. Is that correct?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct.

• 1005

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's it. The rest have been asked and answered.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister, sir.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

I'm totally surprised at the brevity. I appreciate that.

I think the concern that others may have articulated, and I certainly have, has to do with something you alluded to earlier, which is this balance between the benefits of diplomacy and the security issues. In this context, in our country and in many others at this time, I think the balance has shifted somewhat. So I'm interested to know—I believe it's true—if this legislation was entirely drafted and designed before September 11 and not after. Is that correct?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct.

Mr. Brian Pallister: So it would be understandable if there were a greater shift toward diplomacy at the expense of security than might otherwise be the case if we had considered the consequences of September 11 in the design of this bill. Is that a fair observation?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think what I would emphasize here is that we're talking really about an end product. The process will remain the same.

I can assure you that post-September 11 we've certainly reviewed all of our security screening procedures, whether it be overseas or at ports of entry, to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information in our databases and so on.

The process of screening individuals who may be the subject of an order under this bill will continue to be as vigilant as it was prior to September 11, and it will continue to be vigilant in the current environment.

The product at the end of the process, however, is that rather than a minister's permit, they come forward like any other delegate.

Mr. Brian Pallister: After the Catherine MacLean incident, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was very clear in his concerns about the degree of latitude and the consequences of diplomatic immunity for Canadians, as we all were at that time and certainly as some of us are today. I'm somewhat concerned that we've done nothing to address the problem of people committing acts that violate the trust we put in them when we give them that position of being above Canadian law. We've done nothing whatsoever to address that. Yet we're expanding its application. So my question is this: approximately how many mission staff do we have in Canada? Do you know that off the top of your head?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I can't tell you that.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Does anybody here know that? I'm just interested in knowing roughly what the number is. I think it would be quite a few.

The Chair: Didn't one of the witnesses say the last time that there were about 3,500? We'll get that information.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Given the current process of screening, and you talked about consultation and so on, I'm interested in knowing how many people who were going to be posted here as diplomatic staff, say, in the last ten years have been turned down.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pallister, would Ms. Atkinson as a representative from the Department of Immigration be able to answer that?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Certainly she has emphasized to us in her testimony that the immigration department is working interoperably in granting ministerial certificates for exceptions, so she must know how many—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So you're asking her in her capacity rather than....

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes.

The Chair: The witness will answer from the point of view of the department.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't have that information with me. We can certainly do our best to see if we can find out how many people have been refused admission.

The Chair: I would be careful. Mr. Pallister's question had to do with being refused permission from the point of view of the Department of Immigration for immigration problems.

For diplomats, because your question was fairly broad, my understanding is that the department will sometimes declare a person unacceptable for a political or other reason and refuse entry. Even though they might have been admissible under immigration criteria, they might be unacceptable under other criteria, and I don't think they would have any clue about that.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

We'd like to have that information at least for the first category. I think it would be useful information. With that information we would know how many people had been turned down over the last number of years and on what basis they had been turned down. That would be good to know.

If this system makes it easier, which is what a foreign affairs department spokesperson said today in the paper, then is the balance shifting away from security toward expedience? What would be the consequence of that?

• 1010

Let's suppose someone committed a crime who was given immunity—and there are a number of them here. It seems generally that waiver of diplomatic immunity is sought when that happens. This is a report from January 1, 1996, to February 10, 2001, that references about 70-plus cases. But I note that in only four cases was it granted. When it's not granted, I assume what we try to do in a lot of these cases is get the person out of Canada. If we do that, are you consulted? Who makes that decision?

The Chair: Wait a minute now, Mr. Pallister; you have to be fair. When Ms. Jennings was asking her questions about general immigration, you were a bit disturbed.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes. Would you like me to explain the relevance of this?

The Chair: How is it relevant to temporary entry for temporary reasons and conferences, which this is about?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Let me explain, sir.

The Chair: Let me finish my statement and then you can explain, because I'll tell you what my problem as chair is.

I've allowed you a lot of latitude, and most of the questions you asked the previous witness when we were here earlier were about the general problem of diplomatic immunity. For example, you used the example of the Ukrainian guy, you used the example of the accident of the car—

Mr. Brian Pallister: I think I could explain very quickly.

The Chair: None of those people had anything to do with an international conference. They were all diplomats. They were accredited—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mission staff, that's correct.

The Chair: —to the country.

What we're trying to do here.... I'm just worried about the time. If it's relevant, I'm happy to let—

Mr. Brian Pallister: This act is before us, Mr. Chairman, and that allows us to present amendments to this act. Certainly the way in which we deal with people leaving the country after they've committed a crime is very important to Canadians. It would be very much influenced by the way, the process, in which we let them come in in the first place. That's directly relevant to what the immigration department feels—

The Chair: So your question is directed to what would happen if somebody coming here for say the G-8 conference committed a crime while they were here?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Or a permanent member of diplomatic staff....

The Chair: This has nothing to do with—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Sure it does. It certainly does, because the act applies to both. I'm interested in the process—

The Chair: No, the act does not apply to both—

Mr. Brian Pallister: If you'd allow me to explain my question.... What would the process be—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to correct Mr. Pallister, but there is only a single clause in the bill now before us, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the issue of immigration. That is strictly with respect to the issue of an order made under subsection (1), which is with respect to international conferences, and section 19 of the Immigration Act. Any amendment that might be proposed with respect to some of the very legitimate concerns that Mr. Pallister raised would be ruled out of order.

So that's the problem: we've only got this one particular section before us, Brian, and much as we might want to pursue other issues, we can't deal with them in the context of this bill.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm interested in knowing what the process is: if the process for getting people out of the country is the same as the process for getting them in and if consultation occurs. That's a very simple question.

The Chair: You can ask that question.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Consultation does occur. If someone commits a crime while they're in Canada, whether they're here on diplomatic immunity or otherwise, then there may be an immigration issue that we deal with.

Mr. Brian Pallister: So you consult with CSIS, the RCMP, and other agencies—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Just as you would at the front, you do at the back?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: So there's a team approach to dealing with consequences of criminal acts.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I should say that for any international meeting held in Canada, there is a team—CIC, CSIS, RCMP, Foreign Affairs, local police—as in the Quebec Summit of the Americas, Francophonie. For any of these large international meetings, the immigration department is always involved in the team responsible for ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.

Mr. Brian Pallister: You said before that this won't change now.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That will not change.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Patry have been waiting patiently. I'm going to ask them if they can ask some fairly short questions, both together, and then we'll get the answers on the record and then we can go on.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'll let Mr. Patry go first.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Good morning, Ms. Atkinson. I'll be brief.

Cabinet can issue an order in respect of a conference scheduled to take place here in Canada. Consequently, a representative of a foreign state cannot be arrested in Canada because he enjoys immunity.

If, while that foreign representative is in Canada, we learn that he has been charged by an international tribunal, what happens to the immunity then? Does that individual keep his immunity?

• 1015

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: They are not entitled to immunity under this act if they have been convicted or they are convicted by an international tribunal.

The Chair: But it must be an international tribunal, not a domestic court.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Correct.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry my earlier brief intervention was taken as my questions, because it wasn't.

The Chair: Well, I apologize.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'll try to be brief. I have a number, and they're pretty relevant.

It follows on something that Mr. Robinson raised earlier—whether there are written criteria—and relates to a visit that's going to take place on Monday from Gerry Adams coming to Ottawa. I want to talk about potential bias in the system. We're certainly seeing it in the media. You have somebody of the calibre of Jeffrey Simpson writing on Saturday in the Globe that the Prime Minister has refused to meet Gerry Adams in the past. That's utter nonsense. He met with him either late fall or early spring of 1999. Indeed, there was a picture of him shaking hands in the Globe and Mail newspaper. Somehow Mr. Simpson was unaware of that.

Mr. Bernard Patry: He doesn't read the paper.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, he doesn't read his own paper.

That's journalist bias that may or may not exist. But I'm more interested in any potential bias in the system, and not just around Mr. Adams, but around anybody who wants to visit Canada and is legitimate.

So my first question, Mr. Chairman, is whether someone like Adams would need a visitor's visa or a ministerial permit to come in.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I can't comment on the specifics of individual cases, obviously—

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Right.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: —but an individual who has been convicted in the past of a criminal offence is inadmissible to Canada if that's described in section 19 of the act. The individual would require a minister's permit to enter Canada. This particular amendment does not deal with that particular situation if an individual's coming simply for a bilateral visit. This act and the amendment to it only deal with individuals who are coming for international meetings.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: So this doesn't apply at all.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: So the case of Mandela that was raised—I take it that was a relevant question, and I'd like to pursue that. On what basis did Mandela come into Canada, then—with permit or visa?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: On a permit.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Permit, okay.

It sounded as if you were talking about a collective decision earlier and a consensus, but who has the final call? Is it the minister, personally, or some high official?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's cabinet that is the final determinant. Cabinet issues the order.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: On each individual case.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Then I take it, Mr. Chairman—and I don't want to contribute to being out of order here....

The Chair: Everybody else has.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Everybody else has the same latitude, okay.

I just wondered if this wouldn't be the place to raise the idea of a list. I understand the government is going to compile a list of terrorist organizations. Would this be a relevant place to raise that question?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well...

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Here's where I'm going on this. If you take something like Sinn Fein and the IRA, the bias is they're one and the same, which is not helpful to the peace process in Northern Ireland, frankly. Even in the U.S.A. or the U.K., I don't think they list the IRA as a terrorist organization. I really want to know, what's your involvement going to be in the compilation of such a list, and what's the input of members of Parliament going to be on that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think you're speaking of Bill C-36. The list, as I understand it, will be compiled by the Solicitor General's office, obviously with CSIS and whatever sources CSIS is using. And I believe it will be done by an Order in Council. Again, cabinet will make the final decisions about which organizations are on that list. But that is for the purposes of criminal prosecution and not for the purposes of immigration.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. Thanks very much.

The Chair: Let the record show that those questions were asked by the chair of the Irish caucus.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have an important question.

The Chair: All questions are important.

• 1020

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Clause 3 (6) of the bill reads as follows:

(6) Section 5 of the Act [...]

The reference in this case is to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

[...] is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

These are the three lines in question. This means that a new subsection is added to section 5 of the act. Section 5 deals with international organizations. The G-8 is not an international organization and as the bill is now drafted, the G-8 would not be covered by this amendment. I think there has been a drafting error, because the definition of “international organization” is quite clear: it means an intergovernmental organization [...] of which two or more states are members.

The Chair: That's right. Here we have a different definition.

[English]

Can you answer that for us?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I believe that one of the amendments is changing the definition of international organizations so it will include the G-8, APEC, and other such groups.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Then the definition is different. I simply wanted to verify that fact.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, just to remind everybody where we're coming from on this bill, the reason the bill was brought in in the first place was because the joint committee on scrutiny of regulations adopted a report suggesting that while it was possible for permits to be issued for treaty organizations, it was not possible under the act for other forms of organizations.

Frankly, there's a dispute about that, as to whether in international law it's an accurate interpretation. Anyway, the government felt they had to introduce this to cover this rather grey area on one side. That's really why we're here and what we're trying to deal with. So the purpose of the bill is to make sure that we do scoop in the G-8, the various others.

I think the Francophonie is a treaty organization, but I don't think the Commonwealth is. So you have these obscure sorts of differences. The Quebec summit wasn't a treaty organization; it was just a summit.

So that's what they're trying to do. That's why the bill is more limited often than the questions have indicated, but that's fair game. We're trying to get a better understanding of how the system works.

For procedure, thank you, Ms. Atkinson.

We're going to move to our next witness, who I'm going to ask to come to the table. We have 35 minutes for this witness, colleagues, because we can only stay here until 11 o'clock. In any event, I'm told that the bells will start to ring at 10:45 or 10:40 for a half-hour bell, so we'll have to be out of here at 11 o'clock to go to vote anyway. That's what I'm told. It could be inaccurate. You get this information. Somebody passes you a note saying there will be a half-hour bell starting at 10:40 and then it never happens or it does happen earlier, or whatever. We'll find out.

Thank you, Mr. Sloan, from the American Association of Jurists. Thank you very much for coming. We don't like to stand too much on formality in this committee, but we do like to try to get down to the facts. We appreciate your taking the time to come and join us. If you could give us your evidence, then we'll turn you over to questions.

Mr. William Sloan (President, American Association of Jurists): Okay.

I think what I can bring here is my experience. I've been an immigration and refugee lawyer for a number of years. In recent years I've gone back to criminal law, defending demonstrators with my associates in my office. I was in Quebec City during the summit. I was spokesman for the team of defence lawyers.

I've also been on a number of human rights missions over the past 13 or 14 years in various countries in Latin America, where I was in direct contact with government authorities and human rights organizations there.

As well, the American Association of Jurists is not from the United States—it's the Americas. We have branches in almost every country of the Americas. For example, our representative from Chile is Hugo Gutierrez, who has been prosecuting Mr. Pinochet. Our Paraguayan representative is Martin Almada, who uncovered the Condor files, and some of our members in Argentina are the ones who have been prosecuting the military there.

• 1025

The issue I see here is not clause 1, which you just explained, Mr. Chairman, but rather proposed section 10.1, which is being added into the act and relates as well to changing issues with respect to special permits to enter the country. I was rather surprised when I went back and read the act itself, as it exists, to see that such a major change in Canadian law would be introduced in this act. It's rather like grafting a hippopotamus onto a plum tree. One wonders why the hippopotamus and why the plum tree.

This is an act with respect to smooth functioning of diplomatic and international missions, not with respect to maintaining peace and order and protecting the security of the diplomats. There is nothing in this act at present about protecting the security of diplomats. That's done with respect to other acts.

It would seem to me that such a modification would be more appropriately brought before perhaps the justice committee, because it concerns police powers. If someone tells you that this is not a change in police powers, then either they're lying or they don't know what they're talking about, because the change is major.

I had written up a little thing where I said that if this act goes through as it is, then whenever there is an international conference here, Canada will basically be turned temporarily into a banana republic police state. Now, the banana republic is just to get your attention, but the police state I am serious about. The reason I suggest a police state is for the following.

There are major powers that are being given to the RCMP in this new act. At clause 5, which will bring in the new proposed section 10.1, proposed subsection 10.1(2) talks about giving the RCMP the power to

take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

There's no judicial consent, no Attorney General's consent. No one's consent is required—the police decide.

In this country we have three powers: you—Parliament—the executive, and the judiciary. This is a fourth power being created. The police can decide on their own. There are no parameters here. It's what is reasonable and “to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.” They decide what's reasonable, they control the circumstances, and there are important new powers that are being given to them. When you say that you can control or limit access to an area, that requires identifying persons.

In Canada at the present time, the only time that I or you or anyone else here is required to identify themselves is when they are sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, and a police officer asks them to identify themselves. This would change that, because inherent in the power to control access to areas is the power to identify the persons. So people would have to have some identity document. They would have to present identification. Otherwise there would be no effective control. Of course, there would be the possibility of setting up things such as walls, but I'll address that after.

I think that what slips under the door here is the appropriate measures, which are undefined. What is appropriate? The RCMP decides what is appropriate, and that can go anywhere. When you include, it means that you are not excluding other things, and what you're including is the power to control or limit or prohibit access to any area. Now, what area could that be? Let's look at the G-8.

• 1030

You have a problem with people like Jaggi Singh, who has a big mouth and provokes and denounces, and there always seem to be things happening wherever he is. So they decide they don't want him here. The RCMP has a bone with him. They picked him up earlier. The Sécurité publique du Québec has picked him up earlier. The City of Montreal has intelligence officers running around with his photograph. They were running around with his picture at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. They've admitted it in court. I'm just using him as an example; there could be 10,000 others. They decide they don't want him here. So they prohibit him from going, and they don't get a judicial order. They say, “Mr. Singh, you are not coming to Ottawa for the two-week period preceding and two days after. We don't want you in town. If you come into town, we'll kick you out.” They could also do the same thing for other groups of people.

What's interesting here is proposed subsection 10.1(3), which refers to the other powers. If this had been put in with Bill C-36, then everything here would be read with the new powers in Bill C-36. We all know that Bill C-36 is basically going through. So we have to read this with Bill C-36 because the powers that are going to be given to police officers by Bill C-36 are included in here:

The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

So that's going to include all the powers they have under Bill C-36. That's going to include such things as being able to bring someone before a judge to ask them to sign a recognizance so that they be released with certain conditions. Those conditions can be don't go to Ottawa, don't leave Montreal, don't hang out with such-and-such persons. These are all kinds of conditions that are imposed in criminal cases, which would be imposed here without the person having committed any crime, of course, and can be based on security and intelligence reports, which might be confidential.

I don't want to go into a whole analysis of Bill C-36. That's not the point of this committee. I just want to point out to you that there are a lot of crossovers. There is an accent on national security being brought into our legal system now and the possibility of excluding all kinds of information. I'm sure you've heard of the complaints of the privacy commissioner and the access commissioner, who are going to be basically excluded from the process whenever the Solicitor General feels like it.

We get situations where different types of security perimeters can be created. You can have a wall like the one around the Forbidden City in Beijing or like our temporary one in Quebec City, but you can also have virtual walls. You could set up a perimeter that is the city of Ottawa. Proposed subsection 10.1(2) says “any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances”. So temporal and different types of control could be exercised under this mandate with no prior judicial control. Certainly people might complain about it afterwards, but only afterwards. If we're talking about a period of two weeks, certainly people aren't going to be able to contest that stuff in court during the relevant period. There won't be time.

That's why I say that during those periods there's going to be a fourth power here in our country, which will be the police, who will act basically independently. That's the mandate they're being given here. I think that's quite dangerous.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sloan. That's an interesting perspective.

Mr. Pallister. We'll have to really keep ourselves to five-minute rounds, because we can only go to 11 o'clock.

Mr. Brian Pallister: No problem.

So we have a contradiction within this particular piece, Bill C-35, where we're potentially bestowing the right for foreign mission staff and visitors to be above the consequences of Canadian law. Within this same act you're saying that we're empowering the police to limit those liberties that many of us took for granted probably until a few weeks ago. So there's a bit of a contradiction there.

You're also saying there's a contradiction between what Bill C-36 does and what this act does as well.

• 1035

Mr. William Sloan: No, I don't think there's a contradiction, but I think that it's perhaps dangerous to study this separately from Bill C-36 because of the crossover.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Right, so you're saying this broadens the police powers and exacerbates the potential loss of freedoms that is in some components of Bill C-36. Is that the idea? It magnifies the potential loss of rights and liberties for Canadian people.

Mr. William Sloan: For example, Bill C-36 allows our government to exempt people from other countries from the requirements concerning carrying weapons. They wouldn't have to have a licence. So during a conference, for example, you could have not only the war criminals running around, but they could bring the death squads with them and they'd be running around armed to protect these war criminals. We could have all kinds of interesting situations.

Apparently the Indonesian president, when he came to APEC a few years ago, did have some armed people with him. All of this situation would legalize this kind of stuff, and set up an island where it's a never-never land where Canadian law doesn't apply much any more.

Mr. Brian Pallister: So on the one hand here with Bill C-35, where we extend more rights to foreign diplomats, we're placing diplomacy above security, but in terms of the context you're addressing, the expanded police powers, for Canadians we're placing security above freedom.

Mr. William Sloan: Of course.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Good. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Pallister.

I was next on the list, so I am going to take the opportunity to ask you something despite the fact that I'm chairing.

[Translation]

An hon. Member: Do I still have time to ask another question?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): We were doing five minutes. I think that was established.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's two, one, two, and then this amount of time for the final round.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): We won't spend time arguing as to where we should go.

Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: My question will be brief, but I want to be certain that I get it in. I'm not sure what the answer will be.

We're told that in any case, under common law, the RCMP enjoys the powers listed in the proposed section 10.1. I'm not a lawyer, but I have been active in union affairs. I always believed that when the legislator drafted a law, he made a point of never including any useless provisions.

You're a lawyer. Generally speaking, what difference does this make when you are called upon to defend someone who has been deprived of his right to circulate freely.

Mr. William Sloan: It's not that we defend them.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: But if you were called upon to defend them?

Mr. William Sloan: There would be no defence possible. The police have the power to act independently and to control access to an area the perimeter of which they themselves have determined. The police restrict access to that area. This means they can demand that people identify themselves. Currently, there is no such provision in Canadian law. If a person is not behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, he is under no obligation to identify himself to a police officer. If a person commits an offence and refuses to identify himself, he will be detained, but he is still not obligated to disclose his identity. With this bill, there will be a fundamental change.

In 1970, Mr. Choquette proposed a mandatory ID card and I recall how everyone was opposed to this idea. It seems to me that we are gradually moving in this direction. People's right to circulate freely is also threatened by this bill, as are the fundamental freedoms set out in section 2 of the Charter, namely the freedom to assemble peacefully, freedom of association and freedom of expression. All of the freedoms covered in section 2 of the Charter may be violated without the RCMP having to justify its actions whatsoever. However, this can happen only in connection with an international conference.

• 1040

It's become increasingly clear that security arrangements for international conferences are not made overnight. It is an ongoing process from one conference to the next. I know that my Montreal colleagues are trying to obtain information on police infiltrators in the crowd in connection with a trial tied to last year's G-20 summit. They've been told that security is an ongoing process and that information cannot be disclosed. We see how police services deal with such matters. If given more powers, they are not likely to show restraint all of sudden. Quite the opposite is more likely to occur.

The Chair: You have one minute remaining.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: This bill was given second reading before C-36. When I read C-36, I told myself that the two bills needed to be read together. The measures set out in C-35 combine with those in C-36 respecting preventive detention and so forth.

Mr. William Sloan: That's right, because with the proposed subsection (3), all of the new powers granted to the police and to the courts can be exercised in such circumstances. There will always be jurisdictional issues and provisions that will automatically apply, particularly when it comes to interrogating people. Who can say whether or not, in the case of a forced interrogation, a foreign agent such as an FBI may be involved. When I visited inmates at Orsainville during the Summit of the Americas, every morning I would note the signatures of three FBI agents. They would arrive at the facility in the morning, and leave at the end of the day. They spent their day interrogating people. This will become standard procedure and these officers will be authorized to carry a weapon. Our very sovereignty is at stake.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Carroll.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Sloan. It's been interesting to listen to your testimony this morning.

I would have to draw attention to what seems to be some contradiction between your testimony this morning and that of the Solicitor General officials, who made reference to proposed section 10.1, subsections 10.1(1), 10.1(2), 10.1(3), which you're describing, as codifying existing common law. And they said that in fact it's doing this to put in clearer form what has already existed, and to draw our attention to the fact, again, as we've discussed this morning, that we're dealing with international conferences.

They stated that indeed subsection 6(1) of the Security Offences Act already gives the RCMP primary responsibility to protect internationally protected persons, who would be those who are coming to such conferences. They said that in fact we've moved, as is always perhaps a little difficult, from common law, which is precedent-based, to a codification more along the lines obviously of the code civil, but that in fact this is not a change in the power, but merely a codifying of what has existed before in other statutes, as I've made reference, or in the precedent base of common law generally.

I was wondering if you could explain that apparent contradiction.

Mr. William Sloan: I think that if there's an apparent contradiction, it has to start from the premise of the old “Trust me, I'm a lawyer”. And I'm not talking about what I said, because I detailed that I don't know what the Solicitor General said.

• 1045

To just state that it's all in the common law and in the law I think is just clearly wrong. There's no requirement to identify oneself in Canada unless one is behind the wheel of a motor vehicle—none. If you're caught committing a crime, then you can be arrested. If you identify yourself, it's just to facilitate giving you a notice telling you to appear in court. But even then you're not required to identify yourself; you still have the right to remain silent. If they are controlling people and limiting access, then that requires identifying them. So that's a new power.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: If I may say so, that's an assumption you're making, but I don't think it is clearly stated, as you are putting forward. It is saying “the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate...”, and then defining what is indeed the ambit of this act.

Then it says they may “...take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access”. But they have had that authority in the past. And if indeed your fear is one that comes true, then of course we always have the charter to assess any action the police may have taken, which may determine that it was not appropriate. This does not in any way alter the status quo ante, from my understanding and from the explanations given us by the officials of the Solicitor General's office.

Mr. William Sloan: Of course. If there's no prior authorization required.... For example, if the RCMP wishes to tap someone's phone, they ask a judge for permission—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: As it now stands.

Mr. William Sloan: Yes. If they want to seize someone's assets or search someone, unless they find them in a hot-pursuit kind of situation, they must obtain permission.

This is a blank cheque, with no permission required, and there are too many imprecise terms in there. “Appropriate measures”: what is “appropriate”? There's no requirement for someone to authorize. In Bill-36 there are more protections than there are in here. Whatever else I might want to say, at least there are judges involved. I think there may be judges inappropriately involved in some cases in Bill C-36, but at least there are judges involved.

Here there's no judge. You have “appropriate measures” and then you have “to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances”. These are so many undefined terms; they are all terms the courts have found to be terms that confer discretion. What is “appropriate” and what is “reasonable” and what is “in the circumstances” are all terms that confer discretion—and you have a string of them here, right? These are multipliers, and no prior authorization is required, not even the Attorney General's authorization.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But Mr. Sloan, you would have us understand from your testimony that these proposed subsections 10.1(1), 10.1(2) and 10.1(3) abrogate the criminal law of Canada, and in no way do they. In no way does this proposed section say anything that would have us believe all the protections you've described—which are contained within the criminal law—are now null and voided by this. That simply isn't a good reading of the legislation.

Mr. William Sloan: No, I'm not suggesting that.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But those protections you've described are in place. And my understanding is there's nothing here that will abrogate those very protections; it is merely putting into verbiage what in the past has existed in common law, but it does not in any way fly in the face of the very protections we now have within the Criminal Code.

Mr. William Sloan: I would agree with you that if someone is to be charged, then the protections in the Criminal Code would remain as they are. But this gives power to do something without charging people—just to exclude people from areas, not necessarily charge them. If they're charged, you're absolutely right. The protections in the Criminal Code, although they're diminished by Bill C-36—whatever is left—will certainly still be there if they're charged.

But this does not concern charging people. This concerns affecting people's right to go and to demonstrate, people's right to congregate for a meeting or a conference—because often there are counter-conferences, right? This would allow the RCMP to decide who can go to the counter-conference by keeping them out of the area.

• 1050

There was the Summit of the Americas and there was what they called the People's Summit. Some of the people who attended the People's Summit were taken care of in their own country—they've assassinated them since then. This bill would make sure that if the RCMP decided thus—and they would be alone; it wouldn't be Immigration, although they might do it with Immigration—they would be able to keep people out of a people's summit, for example.

The Chair: Ms. Carroll's problem and our problem is, you say this is expanding at enormous.... I don't understand where it expands it.

I was in Quebec City. To get inside the perimeter at Quebec City, you had to have a badge issued by the RCMP. If you turned up without your badge, you didn't get in. The RCMP already was doing it—and not only the RCMP, but the Sûreté du Québec, the Ste-Foy police, and the Quebec City police were all using.... You didn't move within that perimeter then without authorization.

There's nothing new in here that's going to be any different. The only thing you've picked out that seems to me interesting is the fact—and actually a police officer could say now to you—that you have to identify yourself. But as you say, that comes out of Bill C-36, not this bill—

Mr. William Sloan: No, no, it comes out of this one.

The Chair: —and that it's going to.... No, because it's Bill C-36 that's going to apply, and that anti-terrorism bill will apply to all the country. It's going to change the nature of the common-law protection of citizens not to have to identify themselves. It would apply whether at an international conference or whether you were in a bar having a drink at night.

Mr. William Sloan: I don't think so. I don't think Bill C-36 imposes the obligation to identify yourself just because you're standing on the street.

The Chair: Well, where do you say this imposes an obligation to identify yourself, then?

Mr. William Sloan: They can take “appropriate measures” to control, limit, or prohibit access to any area.

The Chair: Well, then, you are saying—

Mr. William Sloan: How do you prohibit or control without identifying?

The Chair: Your interpretation of the bill is as to whether or not that's an appropriate measure. But as we heard the other day, of course this will be subject to the control of the courts, as the operations of the police always are. In the event they take measures that are inappropriate, they'll be subject to court control. It's obviously ex post facto, but that's always true of police action. If I'm walking down a Toronto street and a policeman does something to me I don't like, he's got the gun; I haven't. I can only deal with it when I go to a court afterwards and ask them to rap him on the knuckles, no?

Mr. William Sloan: No, because they're doing things on a mass level here. This is not an individual action. These are large-scale actions, and they don't involve criminal activity; that's the important thing. There's no suggestion of criminal activity here. There are just “appropriate measures”; it's just to assure the “proper functioning” and the “security”.

But it's “security for the proper functioning”, not necessarily “danger to security” for the individuals, because that's already covered—as you stated, Ms. Carroll—in other acts, and amply covered. They may not have enough personnel, but they have the powers necessary to protect all the individuals who are there; they don't need more powers for that. So what's involved here is the functioning of the conference: they don't want people making noise outside, I suppose.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Is my time all gone?

The Chair: Oh, yes, your time was gone before I joined in on this, so I'd better go to Mr. Robinson or I'm going to get into more trouble than I am already in. Then I'm going to go to Ms. Augustine after Mr. Robinson, and then we'll have to wrap up.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The bells haven't started ringing.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Certainly, as the chair will recall, I did in fact raise a number of these concerns during the debate at second reading of the bill. I was very troubled by the provisions of proposed section 10.1 and voted against Bill C-36. The New Democrats were the only party to vote against Bill C-36 at second reading. It was supported, in principle, by all the other parties,

[Translation]

including the Bloc Québécois.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We'll get it changed and we'll vote against...

Mr. Svend Robinson: We'll see.

[English]

I do want to pick up on the question Bill Graham asked, because I am troubled by it. I was in Quebec City as well and felt the full force of police powers there, as you're aware. We were told by the Solicitor General's witnesses that this proposed section is not.... I explicitly said to them, “You say this is just codifying common law; you're not adding any new powers in this statute”, and their answer to that was “Yes, that's correct.”

In terms of the issue of appropriate measures and controlling and limiting and prohibiting access, there was a prohibition of access at APEC in Vancouver; I was there. It was at the UBC campus. There was a prohibition of access in Windsor, and there was certainly a prohibition of access in Quebec City. In order to pass beyond those barriers, you had to identify yourself, or you couldn't do it. In some cases, even if you identified yourself you couldn't do it. That was the threshold, right?

• 1055

What I'm struggling with here.... I understand that there was a challenge to the wall in the Quebec court, the Tremblay case. At least at that level, the judiciary upheld the right of the RCMP and the other police forces to have that wall. What I'm looking for here is an explanation of what is new about this. If it was legal under the existing common law to put up that wall and to ask people for ID before they crossed it—and you were there, you remember that's what happened—how is this giving any new powers?

Mr. William Sloan: For one, that judgment found that the wall violated the Charter of Rights.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But it was upheld under section 1.

Mr. William Sloan: It was upheld under section 1 because of security issues. As Mr. Pallister was saying earlier, security triumphs over charter rights.

The Chair: Mr. Sloan, you're a lawyer, and you can't say it violates the charter if it's upheld under section 1. Section 1 is a part of the charter.

Mr. William Sloan: Of course.

The Chair: Come on, we all read the charter. Don't say something like that—

Mr. William Sloan: The judge said that there were violations of charter sections 2 and 6 but that they were justifiable under section 1 because of the security rights.

The Chair: So the charter wasn't violated. Let's use our terms properly. There was an infraction of the rights guaranteed under section 2 or 7, but they were justified infractions in light of section 1, which is what the charter is all about. The charter was respected. Don't say the charter was violated, please.

Mr. William Sloan: Certain charter rights were violated, but the violations were upheld because of security issues.

The Chair: No, they were upheld because of section 1 of the charter.

Mr. William Sloan: Yes, and the judge said that the security issues were what were the determinant in upholding them under section 1. He can consider whatever he wants, and that's what he considered: that the security issues—

Mr. Svend Robinson: The point is that the barrier, that wall, and all the attendant requirements for identification and everything else were upheld as being demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, right?

My question for you is—and I'm with you on the principle, but we've got to be able to answer these questions—if that was upheld, what's the new power here?

Mr. William Sloan: That wall was there to protect diplomats, heads of state especially. We had heads of state from almost every country in the Americas present there. It was a major security issue, and that's why it was demonstrably permissible in a free and democratic society, namely because you had such a huge security issue.

Now, you don't need such a big security issue for clause 10.1 here. All you need is any kind of an intergovernmental conference. And you don't have to physically protect only a small area around the conference itself; you can spread the areas you want. You can spread the areas to the whole of the country.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But it does say “in a manner that is reasonable”, which presumably would be—

Mr. William Sloan: It might not hold up in court, but I'm saying that in theory the power is there to spread the area as large as they wish. When I say the whole country, of course I'm exaggerating.

Mr. Svend Robinson: How does that change the existing common law? In theory, under common law, if they could put up a wall that extended to St. Jean Street, they could put up a wall that extended right down to the river.

Mr. William Sloan: But that's not in the common law. That was not defended by the common law. The judgment of the court had nothing to do with the common law. It had to do with the security issues involved in protecting 35 heads of state.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But that's common law. There's no statute that governs that.

Mr. William Sloan: Yes, there's a statute that governs the protection of foreign—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's not about perimeters.

Mr. William Sloan: No, there was nothing in the common law about perimeters. That is, unless you want to go back to the walls around the Forbidden City, around the castles in Europe, and around the cities to keep out the barbarians. But there's no common law about setting up walls to keep people from travelling through the country. There's absolutely nothing in the common law of the United Kingdom, for example, about setting up walls to keep people from moving around. That's a fiction.

• 1100

The Chair: I'm sorry, but all this talk about keeping barbarians out reminds me that the natural resources committee, who are the barbarians, are waiting to get in here, and we can't keep them out. Believe me, Mr. Bonin is a tough guy to fight, so I'll have to bring this to a close, Mr. Sloan.

We appreciate your evidence. Obviously these are important issues, and we appreciate this opportunity.

Colleagues, I want to remind you—and it goes to these discussions, so just bear this in mind—that the minister is coming on Tuesday next week, and he'll be here from 3:30 to 5:30. We would recommend that from 3:30 to 4:15 we deal with Bill C-35, which is what we're presently dealing with, and then from 4:15 to 5:30 we'll do an update on world security issues following his trip to the Middle East.

I'm informed he will be accompanied by the same Solicitor General's office officials who came before, so that will give you an opportunity to ask questions that arise out of these issues about security if you want to revisit that in light of Mr. Sloan's evidence. We can ask those officials if they have comments on that. Obviously, there's room for legal disagreement, but there's also room for very interesting political consideration of these very important matters.

With that in mind, colleagues, I would like to recommend to the committee.... I was going to ask if I could have the indulgence of the committee to do clause-by-clause after the minister's visit, but I don't know if I could get the indulgence of the committee to do that Tuesday evening. There are only two areas that are controversial, and those of you who have amendments could do them in that. If I don't get that consensus, I'd suggest we do the clause-by-clause on the Thursday following.

[Translation]

That would be next week.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Next week?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Are there no other witnesses?

[English]

The Chair: No. Mr. Pallister had a witness, but he unfortunately couldn't come today, and he's not available next week either.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Didn't Mr. Paquette submit some names of witnesses?

[English]

The Chair: The witnesses will come Tuesday morning.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Tuesday morning.

[English]

The Chair: Remember, we will be having witnesses on Tuesday morning. The minister's coming in the afternoon. We will be having more witnesses, yes, on Tuesday morning.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Then we would begin our clause-by-clause study Tuesday at 5:15 p.m.

The Chair: We would begin at 5:30 p.m. If possible, I would like to undertake the clause-by-clause study immediately following the minister's appearance on Tuesday evening. However, if that's not possible, I suggest we begin Thursday morning. It's up to the committee to decide. I'll be away on Thursday, but Ms. Augustine will be present, as will most committee members.

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, there is a procedural question here. One of the concerns in the last bill the committee dealt with was that there wasn't adequate time to give notice of amendments. If the committee is only hearing witnesses on Tuesday, it doesn't really show much respect for those witnesses if we say we'll just plow right ahead with clause-by-clause the same day. I would suggest Thursday would be a more appropriate day.

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, what about Thursday morning for the clause-by-clause?

[Technical difficulties—Editor]